And Allah has called every declaration of prohibition an “oath,” in His words, “Why do you forbid what Allah has made lawful for you?” through to His words, “Allah has prescribed for you release from your oaths.” Likewise, the Companions called a vow made in obstinacy and anger an “oath,” although it is a conditional sentence, considering its meaning.

This is further clarified by the fact that, if zihār were purely a declaration establishing a legal state, its legal effect would necessarily follow, and no expiation would apply. Expiation does not undo a contract or its dissolution; rather, it removes the sin of violating the commitment undertaken. Thus, since neither an oath nor a declaration of zihār requires expiation unless a violation occurs, it is clear that zihār is an oath.

Al-Shāfiʿī holds that the declaration of zihār requires termination of the marriage contract. Thus, if the husband retains his wife for long enough to have been able to terminate it, expiation becomes obligatory. Ahmad and the majority, however, hold that the declaration requires abstention from intercourse by making it forbidden. Expiation removes this prohibition, so intercourse is not permissible before it has been removed.

Ahmad likewise holds that a husband’s statement, “You are forbidden to me,” requires abstention from intercourse on the grounds that it is forbidden. Those who distinguish between the two, however, argue that the wording of zihār could not be given its apparent meaning, since under Islam she does not become like his mother. Its effect was therefore restricted to part of that meaning—abstention from intercourse—rather than termination of the marriage contract, as was their practice in pre-Islamic times.